D&D General I need a D&D counseling session! Help! (Re: Update ("Argument-Stopping Protocols" -- please advise!))

[Nebulous]

I would not sign this. I understand there is history in your group, but so much of it seems angry and confrontational, it taints even several of the valid points. If I was a new player and presented with this to sign, I would nope out before finishing reading all the rules.


Also, threads like this and the one which spawned this make me ever so thankful. I've had some problem players, GMs and co-players in my day. But... man... I see that I could have had it a lot worse.

I would not sign such a thing or play in a group where verbiage like this was even deemed necessary. Your problem player sounds like a big issue though, and removing that person from your game seems like the fix. Yeah, I know, best friends and all that, but he doesn't sound like an enjoyable person to play Dungeons & Dragons with. Arguing with the DM about random things you read online without even knowing the actual rules themselves is a terrible way to game.

 

[Nebulous]

Side-note, between your preferences for very non-explicit language (defeat vs. kill, etc.) and your friend’s reaction to the Black Hack having a pentacle in the art and assumption that FATE and Savage Worlds are some kind of “dark game,” I get the impression that you might be from a strongly religious community or something? Not judging, just curious. I also find it pretty funny that your friend would have such a reaction to FATE and Savage Worlds but have no problem with D&D, given the reputation it had in the 80s.

I admit I would like to be a fly on a wall during some of their sessions just to see what the hell is going on here.

 

[jmucchiello]

That player who apparently is not mature enough to handle his character's death is your problem. Don't play with him or her.

 

[gnarlygninja]

I read the above, and the very first paragraph in the rules just screamed "no", as if the DM wanted to remain immune to criticism.

Ditto, except I kept reading and kept saying no. I can't imagine myself ever agreeing to sign something like this, and it seems like a convoluted way of solving the problem it addresses

 

[jasper]

4. Unless a dead pc is on the floor, all rules flubs, extra damage, etc, stand. I will correct off board the dead pc. Could you unpack this one more? What do you mean by correcting off board?

BTW, that's a great and helpful condensing you did - thanks!

Okay If I kill a pc during the game and it was due to a bad rule call, way too much damage etc,; then the pc is not dead. I contact the player to tell them so, and tell the group before the next In game, I don't give a reason of why dead pc was not active.
If I or gamer roll 12d6 instead 10d6 for a spell during the game and it is not caught. Too bad, the damage stands. If the monster/game should rolled will advantage and failed the spell save, the effect stands.
If your "Jay-zus man," was rolling 2d6 instead of 1d12 for weapon damage all night and not caught. The damage stands and remind "Jay-zus man," next session it is 1d12.
***
It sounds like you and "Jay-zus man," don't get along at the game table. This happens. You can still be friends and do other stuff.

 

[jasper]

True story about gamer friends. Back in 1E some of the former high schools gamers got back together to play. We had Gary former Army, me former Army, and everyone else had finish college and working in their fields. Gary brought his friend Big nose (his nick name was not PG. ) After a few weeks we noticed these best buddies for life, Gary and Big Nose dragged the game to halt if both were at the table together. This was a combination for them trying to top each other on the put downs, or screw with each other pcs.
We did an experiment and took notes. If only one would show we would clear 8 to 10 rooms. If they both show up we cleared 4 rooms. max. The home owner ask Gary not to bring Big Nose. We lost Gary for a few months but he finally started playing with us with out Big Nose.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

My take on this: Do not DM for the problem player. If you need a written contract of does and don'ts for a game of D&D then things have gone too far.
If you are willing to play with this person as DM that is on you but stop DM'ing for them. Be honest and say you cannot stand the aggravation. DM for a group that does not include them.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

It sounds like you and "Jay-zus man," don't get along at the game table. This happens.

Thanks for your counsel jasper. Point of clarity - my "Jay-zus, man!' was an exclamation, not a moniker. My problem-player doesn't talk about Jay-zus. That's just one of my most exasperated oaths!

Side-note, between your preferences for very non-explicit language (defeat vs. kill, etc.) and your friend’s reaction to the Black Hack having a pentacle in the art and assumption that FATE and Savage Worlds are some kind of “dark game,” I get the impression that you might be from a strongly religious community or something? Not judging, just curious. I also find it pretty funny that your friend would have such a reaction to FATE and Savage Worlds but have no problem with D&D, given the reputation it had in the 80s.

We are occultists. Not religionists. We live in and around Hawthorne Valley, which is something like a real-world Rivendell.

We come from the same occult stream which inspired Michael Moorcock -- an Austrian Rosicrucian tradition called Anthroposophy.* Moorcock attended an Anthroposophic school as a youth, which is where he got the Multiverse concept and the concept of a threefold alignment: Law, Balance, and Chaos. Gygax in turn got the threefold OD&D alignment system from Moorcock, though later expanded (by maybe J. Ward or R. Kuntz, IIRC) into the nine alignments of AD&D. Anyway, the D&D Alignment System and the D&D Multiverse (as a concept) ultimately come from Anthroposophy. (There's an article on that here.)

*(Well, I am steeped in that tradition, but have moved on into my own stream.)

Beyond that, I don't want to broach the occultism topic - anyone is welcome to PM me if there are specific questions about this aspect.

Life is beauteous and good here in the Valley. Now, if only I could solve my DMing afflictions! Y'all are helping me. I'm feeling better.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Okay If I kill a pc during the game and it was due to a bad rule call, way too much damage etc,; then the pc is not dead. I contact the player to tell them so, and tell the group before the next In game, I don't give a reason of why dead pc was not active.
If I or gamer roll 12d6 instead 10d6 for a spell during the game and it is not caught. Too bad, the damage stands. If the monster/game should rolled will advantage and failed the spell save, the effect stands.
If your "Jay-zus man," was rolling 2d6 instead of 1d12 for weapon damage all night and not caught. The damage stands and remind "Jay-zus man," next session it is 1d12.

Okay, now I'm following you. Yes, this sounds good.

 

[Longspeak]

Yeah...

Don't game with problem people. And... this might not translate 100%, but in my work I have written a lot of policy and procedure documents. A good P&P is written with the expectation of good faith on the part of the people who will implement the procedure. It's "here is how to do the thing you're here to do." It's not written with the assumption of bad faith, that the people will seek ways around every rule.

An old boss advised me once... when you're writing a procedure to address problems with a specific person, the issue is almost never with the existing procedure.

Write your table rules as if you expect everyone to make good faith efforts to enjoy the evening and help others to do so. If I were to codify my own table rules...
Rule 0 would be "I assume you're all here in good faith, and these rules are meant as guideposts to help us all have fun."
Corollary 0 would be "If you're not here in good faith, then you're not invited to be here."
Rule 1 would be "Every player is in part responsible for the enjoyment of every other player. No player's enjoyment is more important than the enjoyment of the group as a whole."
Corollary 1 would be "The GM is also a Player, with the same responsibilities and expectations."